NEUTRAL on Prop 1: Water Bond

The LWVC could enthusiastically support many of the projects funded by Prop 1, such as the cleanup and prevention of polluted groundwater; drinking and wastewater treatment projects; and water recycling, rainwater capture, conservation, and water-use efficiencies that will help reduce demand on water resources over the long term. However, we have serious concerns that the measure favors large surface water storage projects and gives control over that spending to a commission composed of political appointees with no budgetary oversight by the legislature. Balancing the positive and negative aspects of the measure, we remain neutral.

The LWVC board carefully considered Prop 1 and decided to remain neutral on this measure.

The League opposed the previous $11.14 billion water bond measure that was planned for the 2010 ballot but rescheduled, first for the 2012 ballot and then for this 2014 ballot as Prop 43. As we noted in 2010, our Natural Resources positions “strongly support conservation and other nonstructural alternatives to help solve our water problems,” but that bond measure “encourage[d] continued reliance on major infrastructure construction, with only a small percentage of the money allocated to conservation and nonstructural alternatives.” We also objected that “Significant portions . . . are designated for activities for which long-term debt is financing is not appropriate, such as plans, grants, loans, and studies not directly related to the infrastructure projects funded by the bond measure.” We signed ballot arguments submitted in opposition to that measure before it was pulled from the ballot in 2010 and again in opposition to Prop 43 this year.

In June of this year we reminded legislators of our concerns about that earlier bond measure and urged them to produce a new water bond that could be embraced “with the confidence that the funds appropriated will be used to improve water conservation, efficiency, and regional resilience to help Californians cope with the current and future droughts.” (See the text of our letter.)

Prop 1 is the result of the legislature’s and governor’s actions to remove Prop 43 from the ballot and replace it with a smaller ($7.545 billion) measure that has many desirable features, including less “pork.” A significant portion of the bond funds would enable projects that the LWVC could support:

• Water recycling, rainwater harvesting, and conservation would help improve efficiencies and dampen demand on water resources over the longer term.
• Some small communities and disadvantaged communities would benefit from funds that build infrastructure for reliable delivery of clean water and treatment of wastewaters.
• The $900 million allocated for groundwater is an important step toward better management of this vital resource.

For these reasons, the LWVC does not oppose Prop 1.

However, the League has concerns about certain provisions of Prop 1 that make it impossible for us to support the measure. These include:

• League positions do not support Prop 1’s largest allocation, $2.7 billion for water storage projects. While we could support some regional groundwater projects, language in the measure itself favors large surface storage projects (dams and reservoirs).
• Spending on those storage projects would be in the hands of a commission (the California Water Commission) composed of political appointees with no budgetary oversight by the legislature.
• The measure includes funding for enhanced stream flows to promote restoration of endangered species and enhance water supply reliability. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize water purchases to meet the environmental obligations of exporters or to ensure reliable export supplies.
• We are also concerned about encouraging projects that do not have sustainable sources of water or funding. We must rethink the way we allocate and use the limited supply of water in California as well as how we provide for ongoing costs for monitoring, operations, maintenance/repair and environmental mitigation for the many varieties of water projects.

Recognizing both good and bad aspects of Prop 1, we must remain neutral. This position of neutrality precludes activity in the name of the League, either in support of or against this proposition.

MORE DETAILED STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE LEAGUE POSITIONS:

LWVUS Natural Resources position: The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that  natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosystems. Resources should be conserved and protected to assure their future availability. Pollution of these resources should be controlled in order to preserve the physical, chemical and biological integrity of ecosystems and to protect public health.

LWVC Water position:

• 1.Planning and Management of Water Resources: Support measures that: e. discourage additional on-stream dams; g. discourage water contracting and marketing policies that build up demand and establish rigid patterns of distribution and use; h. encourage a variety of water supply resources with emphasis on nonstructural alternatives.
• 3b. Surface and Groundwater Supplies: To ensure protection and efficient use of groundwater and surface water supplies, the state should develop and enforce policies, standards, and guidelines to coordinate basin-wide groundwater and surface water management.
• 4. Fiscal Objectives: Support measures that: a. require fish and wildlife enhancement, flood control, and recreation costs be borne by the general taxpayer; b. require other costs be paid by the water and power users.
• 6d. Protection of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay Estuary Ecosystem: Support measures that set limits on the amount of water to be exported through or around the Delta.

LWVC Agriculture position: – Soil and Water Conservation, 6: Interbasin transfer of water should be available only after conservation measures have been implemented.

LWVC State and Local Finances position:

6. Long-Term Debt Financing: To ensure provision for long-term debt financing of certain capital projects by:

1. approval of bond issues that take into account: 1) the current bond rating status of the state or local jurisdiction, including cumulative impacts and how the adoption of additional debt will impact the ability to finance future projects; 2) how the bond issue fits within debt management and infrastructure plans, statutory caps on bonded indebtedness or recommended debt ratios (levels of debt service within a budget);
2. use of bond financing for 1) construction of capital projects; 2) purchase of facilities for public use; 3) repair and retrofitting of existing public facilities and structures when other means of financing are not available.